Name a "War" that We Have Won Since 1945

[martybegan]

Look, all stupidity aside, a war is an actual war. The US tied in Korea, lost Vietnam but ultimately won, and won in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The latter two, we overthrew disgusting governments and installed leadership less "deplorable" (love that word), and gave some semblance of freedom to the majority of their populations. Clean sweeps no longer exist outside of more civilized countries.

Considering the Norks were the aggressor in the Korean War, and the US managed to get it back to Status Quo Antebellum, the US has the "win" side of the draw, and the Norks the "lose side".

MacArthur could have won Korea just as Patton could have won the Cold War. I understand Truman's reticence just as I understand Bush's in the first Gulf war. Politics are what make America lose wars, just as it did in Vietnam.

or MacAurthur could have triggered WIII.

And I doubt Patton could have reached Moscow, which is what would have been required to prevent the Cold War. The Russians just had too many men and tanks and everything else for the allies to Counter.

Now Truman might have stopped the Cold War if he was willing to Nuke 10 or so Russian Cities.

You've hit on something there. Patton could have easily taken Czechoslovakia and Poland. They were both there for the taking. Russia at that time had no nuclear weapons and a very exhausted military manned largely by little more than children. Truman's, as well as Bush's (I) decisions were not those of military men, but those of politicians. I am not even going to get to MacArthur v Truman, the result of `which haunts us to this very day.

Their military was less exhausted than you think. The Berlin Front troops were worn out, but the rest of the Fronts had a much easier time getting to the Elbe and into Austria and SE Europe. Plus a lot of those children were tough hardened veterans. We also had the Japanese still to deal with, and a disheveled rear area. (So did the Russians but they were building up for the push on Berlin for Months).

I still think Truman would have been pushed back to the DMZ even if he could have bombed China. The troops they used had a light logistical tail.

 

[Meathead]

Look, all stupidity aside, a war is an actual war. The US tied in Korea, lost Vietnam but ultimately won, and won in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The latter two, we overthrew disgusting governments and installed leadership less "deplorable" (love that word), and gave some semblance of freedom to the majority of their populations. Clean sweeps no longer exist outside of more civilized countries.

Considering the Norks were the aggressor in the Korean War, and the US managed to get it back to Status Quo Antebellum, the US has the "win" side of the draw, and the Norks the "lose side".

MacArthur could have won Korea just as Patton could have won the Cold War. I understand Truman's reticence just as I understand Bush's in the first Gulf war. Politics are what make America lose wars, just as it did in Vietnam.

or MacAurthur could have triggered WIII.

And I doubt Patton could have reached Moscow, which is what would have been required to prevent the Cold War. The Russians just had too many men and tanks and everything else for the allies to Counter.

Now Truman might have stopped the Cold War if he was willing to Nuke 10 or so Russian Cities.

You've hit on something there. Patton could have easily taken Czechoslovakia and Poland. They were both there for the taking. Russia at that time had no nuclear weapons and a very exhausted military manned largely by little more than children. Truman's, as well as Bush's (I) decisions were not those of military men, but those of politicians. I am not even going to get to MacArthur v Truman, the result of `which haunts us to this very day.

Their military was less exhausted than you think. The Berlin Front troops were worn out, but the rest of the Fronts had a much easier time getting to the Elbe and into Austria and SE Europe. Plus a lot of those children were tough hardened veterans. We also had the Japanese still to deal with, and a disheveled rear area. (So did the Russians but they were building up for the push on Berlin for Months).

I still think Truman would have been pushed back to the DMZ even if he could have bombed China. The troops they used had a light logistical tail.

We agree to disagree then. America was the undisputed world power at that time. The USSR and all major powers of the world were exhausted. Truman gave them a breather. Trust me, those decisions were political and in no way strategic.

Truman had the opportunity to pre-empt the Cold War on two fronts. Both were missed.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Look, all stupidity aside, a war is an actual war. The US tied in Korea, lost Vietnam but ultimately won, and won in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The latter two, we overthrew disgusting governments and installed leadership less "deplorable" (love that word), and gave some semblance of freedom to the majority of their populations. Clean sweeps no longer exist outside of more civilized countries.

Considering the Norks were the aggressor in the Korean War, and the US managed to get it back to Status Quo Antebellum, the US has the "win" side of the draw, and the Norks the "lose side".

MacArthur could have won Korea just as Patton could have won the Cold War. I understand Truman's reticence just as I understand Bush's in the first Gulf war. Politics are what make America lose wars, just as it did in Vietnam.

or MacAurthur could have triggered WIII.

And I doubt Patton could have reached Moscow, which is what would have been required to prevent the Cold War. The Russians just had too many men and tanks and everything else for the allies to Counter.

Now Truman might have stopped the Cold War if he was willing to Nuke 10 or so Russian Cities.

The Russian logistical network was strained to the max as it invaded Germany. In fact the Russians had resorted to simply driving huge herds of cattle to the front to keep troops fed.

Our air force was way beyond the capability of the Russians to handle, in fact the only reason it was able tto acheive any sort of parity with the German air force was due to the Germans pulling their air force back to Germany to defend against our bombing runs.

We would have bombed the Russian logistics network back into the Stone age plus all their mass tank columns would have been carpet bombed into oblivion.

The control of the air is the single most important factor in modern warfare and we would have had it and the Russians would have been sucking the dirt dust till they finally surrendered.


Also the Russians were running out of young men to go and die for their country and had resorted to using all women infantry units, a huge mistake.

Patton would have ahd Moscow under his control by end of 1946 at the latest if our military command had given him free reign.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Their military was less exhausted than you think. The Berlin Front troops were worn out, but the rest of the Fronts had a much easier time getting to the Elbe and into Austria and SE Europe. Plus a lot of those children were tough hardened veterans. We also had the Japanese still to deal with, and a disheveled rear area. (So did the Russians but they were building up for the push on Berlin for Months).

I still think Truman would have been pushed back to the DMZ even if he could have bombed China. The troops they used had a light logistical tail.

The Germans had entire corpse of men who consisted of a handful of maimed and wounded veterans by that time. That is hardly evidence of Russian capabilities.

 

[Correll]

Cold

Yep.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Cold

The Cold War was not "won" by any stretch of the imagination, we have simply had an establishment PR blitz to convince us that the Chicoms are no longer communist and the Russians are not their ready allies.

The BRIC block of nations has been an evolution of the old Soviet block with the Russians trading up from anemic Eastern European nations to pair up with huge nations like India and Brazil.

We did not win the Cold War in the sense that we defeated the Russians and other communist nations and compelled them to peace.

They were growing exhausted under their old paradigm so they invented a new one that is far more effective and our Oligarchs declared victory so they could cash in on the so-called "peace dividend".

The old communist block is larger, more global and far ore powerful than it ever was under the Soviets.

No, not a win at all.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Under George Bush's leadership, we won War in Iraq.

We did not win that war as at no point has anyone representing Husseins regime ever been allowed to agree to a cessation of hostilities and have directed their forces to lay down their arms.

Had we allowed remnants of the Baathist regime to do that we would have won, but instead we thought we did not need such formalities and so the fighting never ended and our casualty count went into the hundreds of thousands since we invaded Afghanistan in 2001

 

[JimBowie1958]

Actually, I'd have to agree with Meathead. Not only did the Soviet Union dissolve and reform with some countries joining the West, but Russia isn't as strong as they used to be.

Russia and its new allies in the BRIC alliance is far more stronger than it was under the Soviets.

 

[martybegan]

Considering the Norks were the aggressor in the Korean War, and the US managed to get it back to Status Quo Antebellum, the US has the "win" side of the draw, and the Norks the "lose side".

MacArthur could have won Korea just as Patton could have won the Cold War. I understand Truman's reticence just as I understand Bush's in the first Gulf war. Politics are what make America lose wars, just as it did in Vietnam.

or MacAurthur could have triggered WIII.

And I doubt Patton could have reached Moscow, which is what would have been required to prevent the Cold War. The Russians just had too many men and tanks and everything else for the allies to Counter.

Now Truman might have stopped the Cold War if he was willing to Nuke 10 or so Russian Cities.

You've hit on something there. Patton could have easily taken Czechoslovakia and Poland. They were both there for the taking. Russia at that time had no nuclear weapons and a very exhausted military manned largely by little more than children. Truman's, as well as Bush's (I) decisions were not those of military men, but those of politicians. I am not even going to get to MacArthur v Truman, the result of `which haunts us to this very day.

Their military was less exhausted than you think. The Berlin Front troops were worn out, but the rest of the Fronts had a much easier time getting to the Elbe and into Austria and SE Europe. Plus a lot of those children were tough hardened veterans. We also had the Japanese still to deal with, and a disheveled rear area. (So did the Russians but they were building up for the push on Berlin for Months).

I still think Truman would have been pushed back to the DMZ even if he could have bombed China. The troops they used had a light logistical tail.

We agree to disagree then. America was the undisputed world power at that time. The USSR and all major powers of the world were exhausted. Truman gave them a breather. Trust me, those decisions were political and in no way strategic.

Truman had the opportunity to pre-empt the Cold War on two fronts. Both were missed.

The issue with the US is that I don't think we could have gotten enough additional divisions over to counter the weight of the Russians. We might have been able to get some French Divisions, and hell even some German ones (a year or so after) but I still think the Russians would have the advantage of falling back on a shrinking logistical tail.

 

[Meathead]

Actually, this is one of the few dialogues I've had on this site which hasn't been partisan and has an element of sophistication.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The Gulf War.

was the Gulf War actually a war or was it an Extended Military Engagement.
When was the last time the U.S declared war on another country.

I dont think we have declared war on anyone since we declared war on Japan. The Nazis declared war on us, the idiots.

 

[aris2chat]

we have not had the heart to actually engage and determination to win. Military/president has been playing with half measures

Cuban missiles is the only other time we have had the all in to engage and win, only we didn't really need to now did we.

Sometimes you need to do more than carry a stick, you have to actually shake it and swing at a few.....for the far wall

If we play with nurf bats or whiffle balls, we are not serious, that is just a little afternoon stretch of the legs during lunch

Other countries are not scared or respectful of the US, and only pretend to be if there is a handout involved.

 

[bodecea]

The "War on Poverty; Terror; Communism; pollution; etc" you name the war and we are still fighting it without resolution.

Each "War" is a perennial expenditure of funding and resources that the Beltway Bandit Corporations are certain to grab their "fair share" of each year.

That is why we dont win any more.

Prove me wrong and name a "War" we have won since 1945.

There' been no Wars since WWII.